discord_create_sticker

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare it is a non-idempotent, non-destructive write; the description goes further by naming accepted and rejected media formats, the permission gate, the boost-tier quota, and that the created sticker is returned. That is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action, then constraints, then return behavior — every sentence carries information. The closing "Returns the created sticker" is slightly redundant given an output schema exists.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 100% schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description only needs to supply format rules, permissions, and quota limits, which it does. It omits any mention of the audit-log `reason` field and the guild_id scoping, both minor given the schema documents them.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so name length, comma-separated tags, and image source formats are already documented; the description mostly restates them. The one genuine addition is the GIF-rejection constraint, and it says nothing about the optional `reason` or `description` parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: "Upload a custom sticker to the server," which unambiguously separates it from edit/delete/list sticker siblings and from emoji creation. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives real preconditions: "Requires Manage Expressions" and "Discord caps the sticker count by boost tier," plus the negative rule that GIFs are rejected at upload. It never states when to use a different tool (e.g., edit_sticker to modify an existing sticker) or what to do if the cap is hit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.